Leaderboard

In case anyone here needs a laugh today besides me, it is so corny that I couldn't resist sharing.

Copied from Forbes: "The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), a burdensome new law that would require some 32 million closely held businesses to file invasive information with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), has just been declared unconstitutional in National Small Business United, d/b/a the National Small Business Association (NSBA) vs. Janet Yellen, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, 2024 Mar 1, 2024, U.S. District Court, N.D. of Alabama. The Court concluded: “The Corporate Transparency Act is unconstitutional because it cannot be justified as an exercise of Congress’s enumerated powers.” This case was just released, and the Government has not yet responded, so stay tuned! "

We need a clapping hands emoji. Tom Longview, TX

Stay tuned is correct! The plaintiffs in the case are the National Small Business Association (NSBA) and one of its members who sued for a permanent injuction. At this time the ruling applies to only the plaintiffs, and it is unclear if the injunction will extend to all ~ 65,000 individual members of the NSBA or to only the association itself. An appeal in the 11th circuit is likely with the U.S. government also seeking an interim stay of the ruling in both the trial and appellate courts. Reporting entities that were not plaintiffs in the Alabama case are still bound by the CTA at this time. There are a number of states that have passed or are planning to pass their own versions of the CTA. Today's ruling would not affect states' ability to pass these similar laws because it is based on U.S. Congress's authority under the U.S. Constitution. The court declined to address different grounds raised by the NSBA that could potentially be used to challenge legislation at the state level. The above are.main points from this law firm's analysis: https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/federal-district-court-in-alabama-holds-corporate-transparency-act-unconstitutional-and-enjoins-enforcement-against-plaintiffs

While the PIN isn't overly common, 90% of people who got the protection pin lose the letter from the IRS and we have to paper file.

Anyone else get the promotional email this morning from Kiplinger and Tax Tips, offering an "investment opportunity" in bourbon with something called Cask X? It was cleverly done - but in the thick of the season, I'm more interested in drinking it than investing in it. I did get a kick out of it, and would post the entire "opportunity" here if anyone else wants a chuckle from it but did not get it.

Sounds like acquisition costs to me. Amortized. If you are saying it is not "fully deductible as an expense in year 1" then I agree with you. In QB, debit loan fees (LT asset) and credit Loan Payable (if part of the loan) or cash if paid upfront. Tom Longview, TX

1095-A. Whether they have a subsidy on their insurance or not, I have got to have that form or the return will not go through on e-file. Year after year, they "forget".

A check

I think it is the first domino to fall. The politicians are going to go to their districts to campaign and they are going to hear about this "overreach" of government, and now a federal judge has given them some cover to back up a bit and take a look at another approach. Just my opinion, but I know a lot of business owners are pretty ticked about the BOI, at least in my neck of the woods. I am hoping that we will see something more targeted and less intrusive for mom and pop companies. One can hope. Tom Longview, TX

We have it. Click on the smiley face in the formatting bar of the reply box and a popup box with all of the emojis will appear. You can search for "clapping" from there. Why are we exactly? The CTA still applies for now.

From Pub. 54, How to Figure the 12-Month Period: "In determining whether the 12-month period falls within a longer stay in the foreign country, 12-month periods can overlap one another."

A recent TAS blog post said: https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/tax-tips/employer-identification-numbers/2024/02/

Oops, no, I'm sorry. I put a strikethrough on "singles and" in my post above. The amount for singles is the same as MFJ. The limits are halved for MFS living apart all year. Single would still phase out at the $150K.

Any client who changed brokers, be sure and compare dividends from the previous year. One of mine who switched from Wells Fargo to Merrill Lynch, went from $5,000 in dividends in 2022 (and no stock sales) to zero. I have one consolidated 1099 from Merrill Lynch with no stock or mutual fund sales (interest only). Obviously a 1099 is missing...and good luck getting something from Wells Fargo once you close your account.

Correct Yes, for MFJ the lower limit where phase out begins is $100K and the potential to claim any loss under this special provision is phased out at $150K. Basically the potential $25K loss allowance phases out at $1 for every $2 when MAGI starts to exceed $100K. Those amounts are halved for singles and MFS living apart all year.

1098-T. Many of the forms are scarce because the issuers want to bail out of printing them and paying postage. When you ask the client, either he doesn't know he has them, or else you get: "Oh yeah, I've got that right here on my phone!!" [Scroll...Scroll...Scroll...Scroll 95 more times] 20 minutes later they hand you the phone which you can barely read. "Can you print this out?" "Oh no we don't have a printer anymore. We keep everything on our phone!!!"

The $25,000 begins to phase out when MAGI exceeds $100K and is completely eliminated when MAGI reaches $150K. I don't think you are using MAGI and the loss properly in your calculation above to figure the allowed portion of the loss. ATX should have a worksheet that shows the calculation of MAGI and also the phase-out and/or allowed portion of the loss. Here is a link to the 8582 instructions. A description of the calculation for MAGI is found under the heading "Part II - Special Allowance for Rental Real Estate Activities With Active Participation" https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8582#en_US_2023_publink1000278151

I haven't had a bounced check in many years

As for your specific case here, @Corduroy Frog, check the account numbers and if there is a print date. Does the client have (or can they log in and get) monthly statements for tracing what they received in reality? Or, just wait for corrected forms. Discuss with client whether to double-count dividends for the purpose of filing extension determination of whether a tax payment is needed.

We have had clients bring in statements from both Schwab and TD Ameritrade. We have not seen just two Schwab statements

Are the EINs for the reporting payer the same on both 1099s? Is either marked corrected, amended, or have an issue date that indicates a more recent form? Yes, Schwab bought out Ameritrade during the year, but your post above still does not explain why the 1099-DIV in your original post reported qualified dividends in excess of the total ordinary dividends.